[governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Sun Feb 9 04:20:06 EST 2014

Hi Parminder,

I think we see the problem differently.

To me the central problem here is the power of corporations to influence and
dictate policy in their own interests. I have plenty of evidence that the
nation state system we call democracy as universally practiced AND
multistakeholderism are both highly susceptible to this power. So in this
respect neither solves my basic problem. And at this level there is not much
point in talking about what democracy should be or what multistakeholderism
should be - both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it.

Tell me - if we abandon multistakeholderism, will the corporate dominance
problem disappear? Of course not. And if you all get up in your country 
tomorrow and vote in another government, will the problem disappear? Of 
course not.

I conclude that the real problem is not the systems of governance, but the 
power of corporations to overpower representative systems.

The most effective counters I know are in the form of social activism and
advocacy. In that respect, the most powerful thing civil society can do is
to speak and act forcefully with one voice against the major problems we
face. And in the Internet governance area, corporate dominance is very high
on my list. Along with unilateral governmental dominance in some areas.

I think we divert our energies if we attack multistakeholderism instead of 
corporate dominance. But equally, I think we must clearly point out the 
dangers of corporate dominance in a multistakeholder system.

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: parminder
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:06 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of
> multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real
> and present danger.
>
> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we
> call democracy?

Ian

This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as
democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to
call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it,
as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the
Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about
democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said
dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of
democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things
that are so high and valued as democracy.

So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same
danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for
taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level
democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
is the discussion to have.

But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.

BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
- which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.

If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.

parminder

> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
> in some other countries.
>
> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>
> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards
> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>
> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)".
>
> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
> central design element.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>
> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>> multistakeholderism)
>>
>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my
>> greater concerns.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 